Referendums can be used to manipulate the people
What you need to know:
- In 2007 in Thailand, the military junta that had ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra used the referendum way to manipulate Thais.
- A referendum was held in South Africa in 1992. It was limited to white voters only, who were asked whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun by President de Klerk two years earlier to end the apartheid system.
- If the government had been a bit more prudent we would not have got into this referendum-mania. If the opposition were cleverer they would focus on developing key counties.
I referendum, you referendum, she referendums. We referendum, you referendum, they referendum.
Referendum in Kenya has actually become a verb. It is the most common word in our lips and minds. We eat, drink and sleep referendum. It’s fancier than Coca-Cola, beer and football.
It has always been a powerful political tool, the tool of choice in countries when other avenues are closed.
A referendum is the recourse to the very essence of democracy, the rule of the majority. It is taking the question back to the people. It has been used both to save as well as manipulate entire populations; for the better and the worse, out of love and out of hatred.
Some referendums have been used to accumulate greater powers. In 2007 in Thailand, the military junta that had ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra used the referendum way to manipulate Thais. Most Thais voted less for the referendum per se than for the holding of an election, which the junta threatened to postpone if the referendum was rejected.
Other referendums are used to open or close social doors. A referendum was held in South Africa in 1992. It was limited to white voters only, who were asked whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun by President Frederik Willem de Klerk two years earlier to end the apartheid system. The result of the election was a large victory of 68 per cent for the "yes" side, which ultimately ended apartheid.
OUSTING HUGO CHAVEZ
Seven months ago, a referendum in Switzerland placed strong immigration restrictions and passed by a narrow margin, with 50.3 per cent of participating voters supporting the measure. The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement within three years, or else revoke the agreement.
According to the Washington Post, the proposal introduced strict quotas for immigrants and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits, and to request asylum.
In some countries, referendums are simple midterm checks on presidential performance. In 2004 in Venezuela, a referendum to oust Chavez failed. Public opinion polls in the first quarter of 2004 indicated that voters favoured removing the president from office.
The government delayed the referendum for eight months, and sped up social programmes that changed attitudes. The government’s victory discredited and embittered the opposition.
SOUTH SUDAN AND SCOTLAND
The most radical kind of referendum is the one that allows a section of a country to secede and form a new country. This happened to Sudan, which gave birth to South Sudan. The same may happen this month to Scotland. The referendum question as framed now is, “Should Scotland be an independent country?"
Referendums are time-consuming and expensive political ventures. They are not the type of tools that should be used without having compelling structural reasons and the practical certainly of winning.
In our case, it is not entirely clear why we should have a referendum now. This will be the third referendum in nine years. This is a very expensive business.
Certainly, the 2010 Constitution is not perfect. It will eventually need some amendments and corrections. This is normal, and more so in such lengthy texts. But what makes us think that a referendum now will improve life?
STRUCTURAL QUESTIONS
Three things are necessary to win a referendum. First, a set of powerful and pertinent questions, which appeal to the vast majority of voters. These questions must be real problems or concerns, desperate measures that cannot wait till the next election.
They do not depend on the government of the day. They are not questions of party politics. They are structural questions, no matter who is in power and who is in the opposition.
Second, a successful referendum requires a functioning electoral body that is perceived to be neutral, fair and competent. Third, an overwhelming majority of supporters is necessary, and fourth, the financial muscle to create the critical mass of voters is required.
There are three ways to change the 2010 Constitution. First, is the ordinary process: Most provisions in the Constitution can be altered if both the Senate and the National Assembly support any change with a two-thirds majority.
ENTRENCHED CLAUSES
Changes cannot be made in a hurry. The Constitution requires the process to extend over at least 90 days and Parliament has an obligation to publicise any proposed changes and hold public discussion about them.
Secondly, some provisions in the Constitution have special protection. They are "entrenched clauses". They can only be changed if the people agree to their change in a referendum. To amend any of these provisions, at least two-thirds of the members of both the Senate and the National Assembly must approve the amendment and it must be approved in a referendum.
For approval, at least 20 per cent of the registered voters in at least 24 counties must vote in the referendum and over 50 per cent of the votes must support the amendment.
The third way of amending the Constitution is by "popular initiative" as specified in Article 257. This might be used if neither the Senate nor the National Assembly wants to support a change.
This third way is next to impossible. It requires, among many other intricate steps, the consent of at least 24 county assemblies.
A RELUCTANT PARLIAMENT
If the government had been a bit more prudent we would not have got into this referendum-mania. If the opposition were cleverer they would focus on developing key counties.
Will a referendum solve our problems or create additional ones? Where will the money come from? Will a reluctant Parliament agree to allocate funds to a popular referendum call?
There are still too many question marks and complexities about changing the Constitution. Once we go ahead and spend billions to change it we will realize that our problems were not resolved. Then we will all change the tune, just like in Animal Farm. “Four legs good, two legs better.”
Dr Franceschi is the dean of Strathmore Law School. [email protected], Twitter: @lgfranceschi
